The GNU-Darwin Distribution is a free operating system and a popular source of free software for Mac OS X and Darwin-x86 users, but it is also a platform for digital activism. Founded in November of 2000, the Distribution has the stated goal of bringing software freedom to computer users of every stripe, and vigilantly defending digital liberties.

"There are reasons other than the fact that one *can* insist on something till the world ends that one *should* not."

I'm not sure wether i understand your sentence. I'm not sure what you mean with ''that one should not'' in this sentence.

It's an infinite circle about freedom of speech (this is what we're actually discussing here imo, which is about politics *cough*). I think anyone, be it ''republican'', ''nazi'', ''communist'', ''moronic'', ''pedophile'' or whatever one calls it according to their definitions, one should according to my principles of freedom of speech be able to express his/her opinion, even if it according to someone random (whoever) ''limits'' freedom.

One who does not agree on this matter, is according to me actually pro-censorship; one who is pro-censorship, but against person X (RMS in this case) which leads to him/her wanting to censor person X because of his/her opinion, is not better than person X. They're dealing with the very same problem in a identical way.

Do you agree?

"Maybe because he wants people to listen to what's really important?"

Who decides what's important and what not? Isn't finding X (not) important highly subjective; which is np, but since it isn't ''proven'' it cannot be used to _force_ onto others' opinions; only to convince. Convincing, which is what GNU and FSF are trying to do? Just like any politicians, marketing people, non-fictional book writers, proprietary software writers are generally trying to do, too?

"Quibbling about "GNU/Linux" endlessly makes him less approachable, less reasonable, less likely to be heard."

Oh, i agree this is a possible result to some people. Especially those who insist (!) to call the OS Linux are likely to get tired about reading/discussing this. However, i don't think that matters for (dis)allowing one to express his/her opinion because expressing their opinion is their choice. When one choses to shoot in his/her own foot, that's their choice. Though it's the question ''who to blame?'' and i'm not certain _if_ that foot-shooting _is_ the case here, since i cannot predict the future. Therefore i think this is not proven. It's possible, and likely to happen for some people, but regarding the world as a whole it's imo hard to draw a conclusion as of yet.

I don't agree with not listening to arguments by person X because s/he made certain statements i didn't agree with. Because according to my experience it's interesting to read about arguments by people with whom i don't agree with. If i'd do this i wouldn't have any friends left!

"You're right about the last point, but I have read much of his writings, and I think he does want the government to "ensure these freedoms"."

Yes, i think he wants them to, since he uses a license. Only public domain, which means the work doesn't have a license, exists without a government and trias politica (or other system) to maintain copyleft/copyright.

Which means there are other people, current copyright holders, including proprietary, who are using the government to maintain their interests, too. I'm wondering wether you are against that too? Those licenses give me less freedom than the GPL. So i currently prefer licenses which are as free as the GPL or more free than the GPL.

The GPL seems to me like a legal way to ensure gained freedoms in this corrupt, egoistic world. I'd like to see the world different, i'd like to see software beeing free like public domain, without having a government which can use an appeal to force and without these people who restrict freedom. However right now i can't believe this'll be happening thus i understand the motivation of the GPL in the current world crisis. However wether this is the Right way to change the world is an endless debate. What remains, is that Free Software (GPL) cannot restrict the freedom of speech afaict. A government however, can, but that has little to do with the GPL since a government can do this on various _other_ ways as well.

I see the GPL as a TAZ, because i think this Fun game will be ''banned'' in some way by governments, lobbies and ''chaos'' of those who are in power in this World though i'm not sure how that'll happen. Why i think this, is because freedom and security are and have always been polarised and it is impossible to revolutionary change this like tried in Russia (the liberal/anarchist movement beeing overwhelmed by authorian/communists); though i think it is possible to do so evolutionary because morals are subjective. But, it will be FUN for a lot people while it lasts and the GNU system _can_ imo contribute to this evolution.